Southern standard. (McMinnville, Tenn.) 1879-current, 1887-07-09

right upon the Dist article of the Bill
of Rights as follows: "That no
mans particular services shall be de-
manded or property taken or applied
to public use without the consent of
his representatives, or without just
compensation" This cause is also
common to the constitutions of all
the States. Texas passed a local OPP
ton law for one of its counties or
towns, one Kennedy, a licensee and
retailer, under the operation of that
law was affected in his business and
property, alleging that his property
had been "taken, damaged or de-
stroyed," for public use, within the
meaning of that section. The Su-
preme court of Texas, on the 9Th Of
February 1887, considered his case,
held, There is a strong and almost
uniform array of authorities which
unequivocally declare that laws,
such as our local option law, are
within the scope of the police power
of a State, and do not take, damage,
or destroy private property for pub
lie USE within the meaning of that
provision of the organic, and do not
infringe upon any other provision of
constitutional law"
The following cases held that a
State may absolutely prohibit the
manufacture and sale of intoxicating
liquors: Supreme court Reporter,
81. This case was decided by the
Supreme court of the United States,
and was a proceeding instituted by
the State of Kansas to remove a dis
trict attorney because he refused to
execute the prohibitory law of that
State by indicting persons who were
guilty of selling liquors in violation
of that law. The district attorney
urged in his defense that the prohib.
itory laws of the State of Kansas
were unconstitutional and void, that
they violated the Constitution of the
United States.
The court, speaking by Chief JUS
tice Waite, say: Gas every n o.
the questions which we are asked tC
!. consider has already been settled in
this court, the motion to affirm is
granted. In Bartemeyer VS.. Iowa
II, it was decided that a State law
+ prohibiting the manufacture and
t sale of intoxicating liquors was moi
repugnant to the Constitution of the
United States. This was reaftired il
[ Beer Company VS.. Massachusetts,, 81
United States, 25,and that question il
no longer upon this court"
This is the highest tribunal known
to American judicial proceedings
See also the following cases, which
| can be found in the library of oul
, lawyers generally: 3 Pacific Report
2 er, j34; State VS., Bradley, 26 Fedora
= Reporter $50; Powell VS.. Common
, wealth Pennsylvania 7 Atlanta Re
porter, 913, holding that. the Stat,
can prohibit the sale of any othe
!, article; IS Federal Reporter, 60
4 Northeastern Reporter, 3OS.
t The following cases held that "pro
r hibitory legislation is not in confic
with the provisions of the fourteenth
t amendment to the constitution of tn
United States" 26 Federal Reporter
2S9; IS Federal Reporter, 50; 3
o Northwestern Reporter, 3OS.
i "Nor is it a denial to any person c
s. the equal protection of the laws.
(26 Federal Reporter, 1897.
d "Nor a deprivation of propert
S without due process of law" e
IS Federal Reporter, 1856; 26 Feeders
n Reporter, 289; % Federal Reporter
sos; 10 Federal Reporter, 50;
Northeastern Reporter, 1917.
Is 1t does not deprive any one pre-
= viOusly engaged in such business
his property. He may sell his stocl
or trade in any way he can, excel
i in such a way as will make him
l. violator of the law" GO Federal r,
IS porter, 1867.
Prohibitory laws are within leg
i islative discretion" (See % FEEDER;
It Reporter, S66 /; 8 Pacific Reporte
d $500.
t, Decisions of courts holding to II
TT effect of those above cited could
o furnished al ndUSeum. Such is NJ
'e only the current of judicial though
and opinion, but there is a deluge
l. them yet to come. Surely no or
se can doubt the power of a State
l. forbid the manufacture and sale